Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2010 Haiti earthquake aftershocks


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

List of 2010 Haiti earthquake aftershocks
The result was   Result was to redirect to 2010 Haiti earthquake (non-admin closure) -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 08:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per the PROD-tag which was removed with no explanation given. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► duumvirate ─╢ 13:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The explanation is in the edit summary of the removal. In any case, this is not really an AfD problem. Either we develop the article to avoid clutter of the main article, or we turn it into a redirect to the relevant section of the main article. Pichpich (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If "Not that I'm convinced we need this but a prod tag won't be of much use," is supposed to be the explanation, then it's extremely unclear! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► You may go away now. ─╢ 14:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to close this AfD and start a talk page thread in Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake to discuss the issue. Pichpich (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Er—no? Why should the AfD be closed?! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sundries ─╢ 14:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it will take five days to be processed and we don't want people to start building the article if it's ultimately deleted. More to the point: AfD is unsuited to solve editorial discussions and can't efficiently handle discussions about articles that change significantly between the start and end of the week-long AfD debate. Pichpich (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * btw, I started the talk page debate. I suggest that we handle it there, not here. Pichpich (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I want the page to be deleted, which is why I nominated it for deletion. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► cabinet ─╢ 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact is, it won't be deleted. I'm not saying this because it's my own personal preference, it's just a fact about the standard way to organize content on Wikipedia. It will either survive on its own or be redirected to the main article. Pichpich (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree that a deletion is deserved for this article, but I am not convinced with the nom's rationale. My point is that why to create an article purely states a list of aftershocks of a major earthquake? It is almost impossible to list all of them, like what happened to this article is that it is only expected to be expanded whenever there is an aftershock, which is of course entirely impossible since not all aftershocks (reading major and minor quakes) are recorded and that scientific community is busy with the account of the earthquake. I reckon this has been separated from the main article, but the "List" size which is only composed of one line is not a justification that it came from a split decision from the main article. Perhaps we can make a worthy mention of this aftershock on the "Aftermath" section. Oh, by the way, the line contained in the "List" was mentioned in the geology section of the earthquake, so a delete is necessary.-- JL 09  q?c 15:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, List of 2008 Sichuan earthquake aftershocks... Pichpich (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I guess an existence of another earthquake aftershocks is not a fundamental and strong reason to have another article featuring list of aftershocks. I propose to delete the article as of this time, and wait for substantial expansion that requires split.-- JL 09  q?c 15:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Since none of the sources are accessible for the Sichuan earthquake, it's difficult to verify it. However it's not at all clear that a list of earthquakes that runs for nine months after the original event is entirely composed of aftershocks. It seems to me that it's likely the information could be compressed and presented in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's easy to list all of the aftershocks. They're here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which of those are aftershocks? How about in three months time? Seems like WP:OR to me unless there are reliable sources specifically listing "Aftershocks of the 16:53 12 January 2010 Haiti earthquake."-- Pontificalibus (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a fair point WP:V-wise. Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a solid scientific definition of aftershock so that's not an issue. Pichpich (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is an issue because the scientific definition is so broad that every seismic event of any size in Haiti is going to count for probably several decades; after a short while nobody outside the seismic community is going to notice. Acto the definition given in our article the page on New Madrid aftershocks ought to be still getting longer! Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete but won't object to recreation if someone comes up with a reliably sourced list of definate aftershocks of this particular earthquake. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Mention it in the earthquake article. This is a case of wanting to be first to write the article after watching the event reported on TV.  Although it was a severe aftershock, there is no reason to separate this from the original quake.  In addition, you don't have to seismologist to know that there are lots of aftershocks after an earthquake, hence the name, and there is no reason to list every single event. Mandsford (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2010 Haiti earthquake (should the list become too large it can then be split off) and close the AFD. No need to waste 5 days here.   Yomangani talk 17:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect Per Yomangani's good idea. Warrah (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now as suggested. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested. Does not warrant a sep article.  JBsupreme (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect Per Yomangani...Modernist (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol merge vote.svg|15px]][[Image:Symbol redirect vote.svg|15px]] Merge/redirect — as proposed. Gosox(55)(55) 01:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.